2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[gitana1]

y'all got me curious, so I hunted down the Oregon evidence rule on the marital confidence privilege.

I bolded the exception that would apply. So it looks like the divorce is not a strategy -- at least as it relates to privilege issues:

Rule 505. Husband-wife privilege

(1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:

(a) "Confidential communication" means a communication by a spouse to the other spouse and not intended to be disclosed to any other person.

(b) "Marriage" means a marital relationship between husband and wife, legally recognized under the laws of this state.

(2) In any civil or criminal action, a spouse has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the other spouse from disclosing any confidential communication made by one spouse to the other during the marriage. The privilege created by this subsection may be claimed by either spouse. The authority of the spouse to claim the privilege and the claiming of the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

(3) In any criminal proceeding, neither spouse, during the marriage, shall be examined adversely against the other as to any other matter occurring during the marriage unless the spouse called as a witness consents to testify.

(4) There is no privilege under this section:

(a) In all criminal actions in which one spouse is charged with bigamy or with an offense or attempted offense against the person or property of the other spouse or of a child of either, or with an offense against the person or property of a third person committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit an offense against the other spouse;

(b) As to matters occurring prior to the marriage; or

(c) In any civil action where the spouses are adverse parties. [1981 c.892 §34; 1983 c.433 §1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255

You didn't need me after all! I really gotta' read to the end of the threads before posting!

 

[shorty42404]

Off topic..

I hope Kyron is found soon! raying:

On topic..

Hopefully something else other than gossip and media frenzy will come out of this hearing.

 

[wondering1]

You didn't need me after all! I really gotta' read to the end of the threads before posting!

I know...it's embarrassing lol. I was totally wrong about how I read the evidentiary rule as it applies to privilege in the context of the divorce case. Major kudos to KH's team.

If you really want to be embarrassed, read the Oregon decision holding that poly's can be admissible to prove state of mind -- rather than the truth of the matter asserted. Like KH moved out with baby k and filing for divorce based on proof, among other things, of a poly showing that TH was deceptive regarding something....maybe the MFH??

this whole time I've been accepting that LDT's are NEVER admissible in Oregon. Wrong!

I think the case is distinguishable. But, nonetheless, if I were KH's attorneys I'd give it a go.

I posted the link in the misinformation that gets your goat thread

 

[gitana1]

But with Kaine willing to testify AGAINST Terri, this does in fact demonstrate a strategy. Kaine has only to testify that he was given information which supports a claim that Terri tried to have him killed, and Terri either pleads the 5th or answers that claim. Kaine has only to testify that he believes Terri kidnapped and either has hidden or killed his child. Terri once again must plead the 5th or answer that claim.

Then it becomes a mini trial attempting to prove Terri did do both these things in their marriage, calling witness after witness who should rightfully testify in a case against Terri for either charge rather than in her divorce case. Kaine can attempt to then basically convict her without ever charging her because hey, they were getting divorced and he was just listing his reasons for getting one.

Strategy it is.

I get your point and I agree with some of the essence of it but it actually does not work that way legally. Kaine would actually have had to present evidence supporting his allegations. He could just say that he was given info but Terri would immediately object on hearsay grounds. Failure to sustain such an objection would be reversible error on the part of the court. I do not believe Kaine actually intended a mini-trial. Because revealing the evidence LE has so far could seriously hamper the case. But, I don't know. Perhaps he is frustrated with the speed of the investigation and desperately wanted answers now, investigation be darned. Either way, I do think he intends and intended to put pressure on TH with the disso and RO application and try to get some info from her, even if it is only by gauging her reaction to the whole thing. For example, if she had fought vigorously, and denied the allegations, maybe that would cast some doubt in his heart. Of course, she didn't.

 

[gitana1]

I know...it's embarrassing lol. I was totally wrong about how I read the evidentiary rule as it applies to privilege in the context of the divorce case. Major kudos to KH's team.

If you really want to be embarrassed, read the Oregon decision holding that poly's can be admissible to prove state of mind -- rather than the truth of the matter asserted. Like KH moved out with baby k and filing for divorce based on proof, among other things, of a poly showing that TH was deceptive regarding something....maybe the MFH??

this whole time I've been accepting that LDT's are NEVER admissible in Oregon. Wrong!

I think the case is distinguishable. But, nonetheless, if I were KH's attorneys I'd give it a go.

I posted the link in the misinformation that gets your goat thread

BBM. Wow! That's incredible!

 

[eyes4crime]

I know...it's embarrassing lol. I was totally wrong about how I read the evidentiary rule as it applies to privilege in the context of the divorce case. Major kudos to KH's team.

If you really want to be embarrassed, read the Oregon decision holding that poly's can be admissible to prove state of mind -- rather than the truth of the matter asserted. Like KH moved out with baby k and filing for divorce based on proof, among other things, of a poly showing that TH was deceptive regarding something....maybe the MFH??

this whole time I've been accepting that LDT's are NEVER admissible in Oregon. Wrong!

I think the case is distinguishable. But, nonetheless, if I were KH's attorneys I'd give it a go.

I posted the link in the misinformation that gets your goat thread

Polys determine state of mind? I'm floored! :doh: The poly is unable to distinguish the difference between a reaction to a medication, underlying disease state, mental illness, generalized anxiety from deception...and the polygrapher may or may not have a certificate or a psychology course. Me thinks this is a dangerous trend.

 

[eyes4crime]

Forgive the off topic, please.

That's not me. It's someone harrassing me by using my name and posting that crap.

:grouphug:​

 

[rnmif]

Huh.... She's not sleeping well, she's emotionally shut down, and vaguely hostile (understandable).

I have no idea what to make of it.....

It was interesting to see her in public. I hope she's guilty, because if she's innocent, I'd hate to be in her shoes. If she loved Kyron as much as her supporters say, and she's innocent.

Wow.

 

[Donjeta]

I'm starting to wonder if $350.000 mightn't be a conservative estimate for her criminal defense costs if Houze is going to appear beside her even at events that she wouldn't have to be there in person for, related to her divorce case which is being handled by another attorney, before anyone's even filed any any criminal charges against her in the Kyron case.

Guess they both need their photo opportunities?

 

[BeanE]

I went down to the courthouse today. I certainly didn't expect to see any of the major players, but I hung around the news camera guys and sure enough, I was at the right place at the right time & saw Terri make her exit. I can't say I got the heebie jeebies being that close to her (like another spectator said) but it definitely made it more real to me. I did expect more people there, but besides my partner and I, there was just one other guy watching. Maybe that proves I'm obsessed about this case. :-/

I don't suppose you made a date for coffee so you could ask her all our questions, did ya?

 

[21merc7]

Polys determine state of mind? I'm floored! :doh: The poly is unable to distinguish the difference between a reaction to a medication, underlying disease state, mental illness, generalized anxiety from deception...and the polygrapher may or may not have a certificate or a psychology course. Me thinks this is a dangerous trend.

I read that article. It was an opinion article, not a news article, iirc. I have never seen poly's used in Court. I know if both sides agree or something like that, they can, but in general no. And you are correct, it would be a dangerous trend. Much like phrenology, palm reading, etc... as far as legal matters are concerned. jmo

 

[BeanE]

This is a raw video of Gabriel Johnson's mother in family court at a custody hearing after his disappearance. It's a similar situation - child missing, mother suspected, in family court for custody, the issues of family court versus pending criminal trial are handled.

Listen to the judge's instructions to Elizabeth, as well as to the questions the attorney asks her regarding where Gabriel is, and then the discussion after she gets off the stand. Note that she is placed back on the stand after the discussion, and then the judge questions her about where Gabriel is.

This is how the issues related to criminal actions are brought into family court.

She pleads the 5th and gives no information regarding Gabriel. What I'm trying to point out is the questions she's asked that introduce the criminal related stuff, and how it happens in these cases.

http://www.kpho.com/video/22969905/index.html

Gabe was last seen eight months ago today.

 

[cluciano63]

Article on KATU about Terri's court appearance says that Desiree and Kaine will have a PC tomorrow at 11AM, re: status of case, Kyron's upcoming birthday (2 weeks from today ) and a fundraiser.

 

[Emeralgem]

I could practically see Houze sitting on Terri's shoulder whispering "head up, expression neutral, don't look at the reporters, relax, keep your mouth shut, keep walking." IMHO, Houze is quietly countering the opinion of Terri as a deranged, child-abducting, possibly child-killing, narcissistic sociopath, and is presenting her as a human being. Her entire "look" today was to that end, IMHO.

IMHO.. IF she wasn't a deranged, child-abducting, possibly child-killing, narcissistic sociopath, there would be no need to attempt to counter opinions. Her stoic persona didn't work for me....JMHO

 

[debs]

I get your point and I agree with some of the essence of it but it actually does not work that way legally. Kaine would actually have had to present evidence supporting his allegations. He could just say that he was given info but Terri would immediately object on hearsay grounds. Failure to sustain such an objection would be reversible error on the part of the court. I do not believe Kaine actually intended a mini-trial. Because revealing the evidence LE has so far could seriously hamper the case. But, I don't know. Perhaps he is frustrated with the speed of the investigation and desperately wanted answers now, investigation be darned. Either way, I do think he intends and intended to put pressure on TH with the disso and RO application and try to get some info from her, even if it is only by gauging her reaction to the whole thing. For example, if she had fought vigorously, and denied the allegations, maybe that would cast some doubt in his heart. Of course, she didn't.

In my hamhanded way, that's what I was getting at....that he would then present evidence and witnesses toward accusing Terri in a civil court about a criminal matter. I suppose that once they made the claim of criminal activity in a civil matter, can't Bunch and Houze ask for any and all evidence they have, through discovery statutes?

 

[gliving]

Forgive me if these have already been posted; court papers filed yesterday.

Kaine's argument: http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Kaine+Horman+argument.pdf

Terri's argument: http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Terri+Horman+argument.pdf

Amendment to restraining order: http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Amendment+to+restraining+order.pdf

 

[Donjeta]

Terri's argument: http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Terri+Horman+argument.pdf

Thanks Gliving.

IMO it doesn't matter if the same links are posted more than once, it just makes them easier to find since not everyone follows every thread or reads every post.

Terri's lawyer :"Here, Wife filed a motion to abate the dissolution proceeding because she is a de facto suspect in the disappearance of Kyron Horman."

 

[BringKyronHome]

I'm a bit confused...can someone help me out...I watched the video of the other court proceeding and I guess this is just over my head. Here's what is bugging me.

If a husband files divorce papers and his wife does not contest that, then why would the court bother to get into the reasons for the divorce?

I can see if there was some sort of disagreement on the terms of the divorce or the terms of custody, that the court may need to get into things in terms of dividing assets and establishing the more stable home...but if the wife does not contest anything, then what is there for the judge to determine?

From my inexperienced perspective, sounds like the only thing the court needs to figure out is where to put the stamp.

:waitasec:

 

[Donjeta]

The difference of opinion is that Terri has requested that the divorce related issues (monetary, custody, etc.) are abated, postponed and Kaine wants them dealt with speedily.

 

[cluciano63]

The difference of opinion is that Terri has requested that the divorce related issues (monetary, custody, etc.) are abated, postponed and Kaine wants them dealt with speedily.

But if she decides just to agree to everything, then it will just be wrapped up without any testimony? (and she can file for a change of custody/visitation at a later date, if cleared?)